CAT/C/46/D/375/2009 must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3, that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.3 Moreover, the Committee specifies in its general comment that it is pertinent to know if the complainant engaged in political activity within or outside the State concerned which would appear to make him “particularly vulnerable” to the risk of being tortured.4 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, and even though these claims were not submitted to the Committee, it should be noted that the complainant told judicial bodies of the State party that he had been arrested by security officers and detained for six months for being a member of Oromo Neetsaanet Gymbaar. He also says that he was subsequently wanted by the police. He does not say he was tortured during his detention or at any other time. He has told the Committee that he is personally at risk of being tortured in Ethiopia if returned there because of his political activities since he arrived in the State party, particularly his political activities in Kinijit/CUDP, for which he is a representative of the canton of Zurich. He says that he helps organize demonstrations by that movement against the current Ethiopian regime, that he takes part in them and that many photographs showing him at such demonstrations have been published on political websites or in newspapers. For this reason, the complainant believes it highly likely that he has attracted the attention of the Ethiopian authorities who monitor the activities of political opponents abroad, and that they see him as a threat to internal security in Ethiopia. 7.6 The Committee has a duty to take account of the actual human rights situation in Ethiopia, having noted that it continues to give grounds for concern in some respects, as witnessed by reports on the arbitrary detention and repression of members of opposition parties and human rights defenders.5 However, the Committee recalls that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. In this respect, the Committee notes that various authorities in the State party did examine the facts and evidence produced by the complainant in his second asylum application, and which he submitted to the Committee. 7.7 While under the terms of its general comment the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, it recalls that it is not a judicial or appellate body, and that it must give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned.6 In the present case, the Committee has noted the State party’s analysis that merely being a supporter or member of an opposition 3 4 5 6 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (footnote 8 above) and communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3. General comment No. 1 (footnote 8 above), para. 8 (e). See, for example, the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for the universal periodic review of Ethiopia, A/HRC/WG.6/6/ETH/2 (18 September 2009), para. 23 et seq. General comment No. 1 (see footnote 8 above), para. 9. GE.11-43945